Dear GOP: Gird Your Loins over the Supreme Court

If you think the riots and marches are bad now, wait until President Trump gets a chance at filling a second or even third vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States.  The "nastiness," vulgarities, property damage, and violence we see now are nothing compared to what we will witness if the American left see the legality of their perverse sexual agenda threatened.

With the nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat vacated as a result of the death of Antonin Scalia, liberals at every level of political involvement are already throwing a hissy-fit.  After Trump chose Gorsuch, radical left-winger Michael Moore threatened Senate Democrats via his Twitter account, declaring, "This Supreme Court pick was Obama's to make and it was stolen by Republicans. Democrats had better block this and demand a nom we approve."  Moore continued, "Senate Dems, let's be very clear: You will filibuster & block this SC nom or we will find a true progressive and primary u in next election."

When Democrat senator Chris Coons (Del.) hinted that he might not support a filibuster of Gorsuch, the response from liberal activists was swift and stern.  Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Stephanie Taylor warned Coons (and anyone like-minded):

There is zero appetite among the public for weakness from Democratic politicians. Especially after Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat, Coons and all Senate Democrats should join Sen. Jeff Merkley's filibuster of Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Gorsuch. That's the kind of backbone the public needs to see right now.

Upon Antonin Scalia's death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told all of America that the election would decide Scalia's replacement.  In other words, Democrats and their like-minded lackeys had a chance to show their strength in this matter in the November elections, and they failed (in historical fashion).

The idea that President Trump will get to fill multiple vacancies on the nation's highest court is becoming widely held.  National Review's John Fund writes that the Trump administration is already preparing for a second vacancy.  Fund reports on multiple sources that say there's at least an even chance that Justice Anthony Kennedy retires this year.  There is real fear among liberals that this is indeed the case.

The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus implores Justice Kennedy: "Please don't retire."  Of course, Marcus's piece is replete with references to the homosexual agenda and how important Kennedy was in weaving such perversion "into the social fabric" of our nation.  Likewise, The Post's Monica Hesse recently reported that "[h]ordes of liberals want reassurance RBG's [Ruth Bader Ginsburg's] health is good."  Hesse's piece quotes multiple liberals worrying over Ginsburg's health:

"I'm very interested in this." says Jeanette Bavwidinski, a community organizer in Pennsylvania. "I'm interested in what her daily regimen is. Like, what are you all feeding RBG? Is she getting enough fresh air? Is she walking? Is she staying low-stress? What is she reading? Is she reading low-stress things?"... "I kept thinking, you know, I could organize a bunch of gays," says John Hagner, a consultant for Democratic campaigns who lives in Washington. "I could organize the gays, and we would just make a protective circle around her at all times. We could help her get up and down the stairs. We got this."

While liberals worry over Kennedy and Ginsburg, the movement against Gorsuch is not limited to kooks like Michael Moore.  Bloomberg reports that there are over 200 liberal groups across the U.S. organizing and mobilizing opposition to Gorsuch:

"We'll make sure the narrative makes clear he is out of the mainstream, is extreme and in many ways is to the right of Scalia," said Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way.

As I noted a couple of years ago, for liberals, it seems it's always about "the narrative."  As has been demonstrated for decades now, liberalism is quite adept at creating "narratives" – i.e., making its own "truth," which can easily change as soon as it's advantageous.  Such skill and flexibility are necessary when one needs political power to make sure the preferred notion of "truth" rules the day.

Remember, two of the pillars (as both Post pieces above well demonstrate) in the church of modern liberalism – abortion and the redefinition of marriage – were achieved through rogue judicial fiat via the Supreme Court of the United States.  In these grave matters, liberals cannot rely on science and sound morality.  They need the powerful arms of Big Government and compliant courts to give them what they cannot otherwise achieve.  Even in a culture with as much rot as has ours, liberals rarely see their ideas adopted through elections or legislation.  (Thankfully, it is harder to get ignorant, lazy, and selfishly motivated "sheeple" to the polls than those motivated by eternal truths and real patriotism.)

Thus, a liberal-dominated judiciary is paramount to the leftist agenda.  Isn't it telling how comfortable leftists are with unelected officials dictating "from on high"?  (As Andy McCarthy has long noted, the U.S. Supreme Court "operates more like an unelected super-legislature than a judicial tribunal.")  One might think they prefer things this way.

This battle over the U.S. Supreme Court is not merely political.  As is almost always the case in these matters (whether one wants to admit such or not), this is a spiritual battle, and one well worth having.  Our elected (and non-elected) conservative leaders had better be ready for this fight.  Millions of American Christian conservatives – many of whom had great pause voting for Mr. Trump – chose to (in my case) touch their screens in his favor because of what we hoped he would do when it comes to the courts.

In other words, the chief reason many of us voted for Mr. Trump and Republicans for the U.S. Senate is because of their role in the federal judiciary.  I previously supported other GOP nominees who also gave me pause (McCain and Romney) for this reason as well.  Other than the collapse of the Democratic Party, as The New York Times noted in late 2014, the chief legacy of Barack Obama is the reshaping of the federal judiciary (which, of course, resulted in the infamous Obergefell ruling).  Among reversing many other things Obama "accomplished," this is another mess many Americans expect Donald Trump and the GOP to clean up.

Trevor Grant Thomas: At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America.
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

If you think the riots and marches are bad now, wait until President Trump gets a chance at filling a second or even third vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States.  The "nastiness," vulgarities, property damage, and violence we see now are nothing compared to what we will witness if the American left see the legality of their perverse sexual agenda threatened.

With the nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat vacated as a result of the death of Antonin Scalia, liberals at every level of political involvement are already throwing a hissy-fit.  After Trump chose Gorsuch, radical left-winger Michael Moore threatened Senate Democrats via his Twitter account, declaring, "This Supreme Court pick was Obama's to make and it was stolen by Republicans. Democrats had better block this and demand a nom we approve."  Moore continued, "Senate Dems, let's be very clear: You will filibuster & block this SC nom or we will find a true progressive and primary u in next election."

When Democrat senator Chris Coons (Del.) hinted that he might not support a filibuster of Gorsuch, the response from liberal activists was swift and stern.  Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Stephanie Taylor warned Coons (and anyone like-minded):

There is zero appetite among the public for weakness from Democratic politicians. Especially after Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat, Coons and all Senate Democrats should join Sen. Jeff Merkley's filibuster of Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Gorsuch. That's the kind of backbone the public needs to see right now.

Upon Antonin Scalia's death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told all of America that the election would decide Scalia's replacement.  In other words, Democrats and their like-minded lackeys had a chance to show their strength in this matter in the November elections, and they failed (in historical fashion).

The idea that President Trump will get to fill multiple vacancies on the nation's highest court is becoming widely held.  National Review's John Fund writes that the Trump administration is already preparing for a second vacancy.  Fund reports on multiple sources that say there's at least an even chance that Justice Anthony Kennedy retires this year.  There is real fear among liberals that this is indeed the case.

The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus implores Justice Kennedy: "Please don't retire."  Of course, Marcus's piece is replete with references to the homosexual agenda and how important Kennedy was in weaving such perversion "into the social fabric" of our nation.  Likewise, The Post's Monica Hesse recently reported that "[h]ordes of liberals want reassurance RBG's [Ruth Bader Ginsburg's] health is good."  Hesse's piece quotes multiple liberals worrying over Ginsburg's health:

"I'm very interested in this." says Jeanette Bavwidinski, a community organizer in Pennsylvania. "I'm interested in what her daily regimen is. Like, what are you all feeding RBG? Is she getting enough fresh air? Is she walking? Is she staying low-stress? What is she reading? Is she reading low-stress things?"... "I kept thinking, you know, I could organize a bunch of gays," says John Hagner, a consultant for Democratic campaigns who lives in Washington. "I could organize the gays, and we would just make a protective circle around her at all times. We could help her get up and down the stairs. We got this."

While liberals worry over Kennedy and Ginsburg, the movement against Gorsuch is not limited to kooks like Michael Moore.  Bloomberg reports that there are over 200 liberal groups across the U.S. organizing and mobilizing opposition to Gorsuch:

"We'll make sure the narrative makes clear he is out of the mainstream, is extreme and in many ways is to the right of Scalia," said Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way.

As I noted a couple of years ago, for liberals, it seems it's always about "the narrative."  As has been demonstrated for decades now, liberalism is quite adept at creating "narratives" – i.e., making its own "truth," which can easily change as soon as it's advantageous.  Such skill and flexibility are necessary when one needs political power to make sure the preferred notion of "truth" rules the day.

Remember, two of the pillars (as both Post pieces above well demonstrate) in the church of modern liberalism – abortion and the redefinition of marriage – were achieved through rogue judicial fiat via the Supreme Court of the United States.  In these grave matters, liberals cannot rely on science and sound morality.  They need the powerful arms of Big Government and compliant courts to give them what they cannot otherwise achieve.  Even in a culture with as much rot as has ours, liberals rarely see their ideas adopted through elections or legislation.  (Thankfully, it is harder to get ignorant, lazy, and selfishly motivated "sheeple" to the polls than those motivated by eternal truths and real patriotism.)

Thus, a liberal-dominated judiciary is paramount to the leftist agenda.  Isn't it telling how comfortable leftists are with unelected officials dictating "from on high"?  (As Andy McCarthy has long noted, the U.S. Supreme Court "operates more like an unelected super-legislature than a judicial tribunal.")  One might think they prefer things this way.

This battle over the U.S. Supreme Court is not merely political.  As is almost always the case in these matters (whether one wants to admit such or not), this is a spiritual battle, and one well worth having.  Our elected (and non-elected) conservative leaders had better be ready for this fight.  Millions of American Christian conservatives – many of whom had great pause voting for Mr. Trump – chose to (in my case) touch their screens in his favor because of what we hoped he would do when it comes to the courts.

In other words, the chief reason many of us voted for Mr. Trump and Republicans for the U.S. Senate is because of their role in the federal judiciary.  I previously supported other GOP nominees who also gave me pause (McCain and Romney) for this reason as well.  Other than the collapse of the Democratic Party, as The New York Times noted in late 2014, the chief legacy of Barack Obama is the reshaping of the federal judiciary (which, of course, resulted in the infamous Obergefell ruling).  Among reversing many other things Obama "accomplished," this is another mess many Americans expect Donald Trump and the GOP to clean up.

Trevor Grant Thomas: At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America.
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

RECENT VIDEOS